To: Senior VP of Operations
From: Jessica Torres, director of Human Resources
Date: May 20, 2012
Subject: Federal Act Violations for 3 cases
The Family and Medical Leave act of 1993 states, that any eligible employee can take twelve weeks of unpaid time off for a family emergency. The family emergency must be one of the four cases: a birth of a child, being a caregiver for immediate family members with a serious illness, placing a child in foster care or placing them up for adoption, or for a serious illness or health concern for themselves. The provisions that apply here is that the employee was granted leave, and has been on leave for 11 of the allowed 12 weeks. The employee has worked for the company for 2 years, which fulfills the requirement of 1 year. The employee must always be allowed to return to work at their same pay rate and job level; otherwise, it is a violation of the act. In this case, he did return to work at the same level with the same pay. The employee is granted benefits during the leave, however, the company is not required to pay the employee for his time off, therefore, in this situation, there were no violations of the act.
Employee B has been with the company for many years. During his work evaluations, he was given very high marks for his work in his department. A co-worker that was given lower marks during his performance review received a promotion over employee B, because he is younger. This is in fact a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. This states that no employee, over the age of 40, can be denied a promotion based on age, and that is precisely what has happened here. It is clear that the promotion should have gone to employee B, considering his performance in his work and how long he has been with the company.
Applicant C has a disability, paralysis of his legs to be specific. This requires that he use a wheelchair to get around. The...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document